Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 27 April 2022 [Archived]

Nashville, TN

Attendees:

• Leif Sawyer, Chair (LS)
• Kat Hunter, Vice Chair (KH)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• Brian Jones (BJ)
• Anita Nikolich (AN)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP - via Zoom)
• Alyssa Quinn (AQ)
• Kerrie Richards (KR)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Matthew Wilder (MW)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

Board Observers

• Bram Abramson
• Tina Morris

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, (MA) General Counsel
• John Curran, (JC) President and CEO
• Jenny Fulmer, (JF) Staff Attorney
• Sean Hopkins, (SH) Senior Policy Analyst
• John Sweeting, (CCO) Chief Customer Officer
• Joe Westover, Sr. Manager, Office of the CCO

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. CT. The presence of a quorum was noted. He welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. AP requested time under Any Other Business to discuss next steps for moving the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group’s final draft forward. KH requested time during Any Other Business to discuss straw polling at ARIN Public Policy and Members Meetings. The Chair agreed.

3. Approval of the Minutes

(Exhibit A)

It was moved by AD and seconded by KH that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 17 March 2022, as written.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-6: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers.

RS stated that the policy discussion saw substantial discussion, and while occasional confusion occurred, the sense of the room stood 30 to 0, a clear indicator of support.

It was moved by RS and seconded by AW that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2020-6: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD asked if there was value in moving the Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status now, six months ahead of the next ARIN meeting. RS stated that while not editorial, ARIN-2020-6 is aligning policy with current practice. He believed that the right thing to do is move it forward now; and if further paring down is needed, new proposals can be drafted to handle that effort. AP stated that the community had been considering the Draft Policy for a significant amount of time, and the Draft Policy was put before multiple, well-attended meetings. She further stated that all straw poll feedback was incorporated into the text, and the Draft Policy is ready to advance.

The Chair called for comments. There were no further comments.

The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call vote.

The Chair requested that RS deliver a conformance statement so that Staff may publish it. RS agreed to do so.

5. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2021-3: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications.

CT stated that discussion at the microphone during ARIN 49 was supportive of the draft as written, and the show of hands was 58 to 0.

It was moved by CT and seconded by AD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2021-3: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no further comments.

The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call vote.

6. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2021-4: Clarifications to Sections 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5.6.

AQ stated that the show of hands was 67 to 0, and the text is rather editorial in nature. She stated that feedback early on from the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) was also supportive.

It was moved by AQ and seconded by BJ that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2021-4: Clarifications to Sections 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5.6.’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no further comments.

The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call vote.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations.

AD stated that there was good discussion at the microphone and off microphone. He did not currently see strong support; and, suggested that the AC could abandon based on lack of support, pursue text changes in line with the current problem statement, or seek a new direction for the problem statement. AD stated that he is not making a motion but would like to discuss the policy with the AC and the community further before selecting an avenue.

AW stated that the table topic for leasing had a tremendous amount of feedback. Several operators were in favor and had plenty of space to lease as income generation, but they felt restricted in their ability to obtain more while that happens, as their customers are non-connected. She stated that she is not in favor of abandoning prior to more community input.

AQ asked what aligning the text with the current problem statement would entail. AD mentioned that much like out-of-region use once was, leasing is tacitly allowed now as it has no clear existing policy. He stated that he has ideas on how to reform the text, but he would like further feedback first. RS stated that the AC holds the pen right now, and the problem statement is author specific. The lack of other options for many of limited means is a stronger problem statement that exists now. It may help to speak with the author about adjusting it accordingly. AD stated he would work with the author and encouraged the remainder of the AC to send any notes or ideas to the policy shepherds.

RS stated that lack of clear policy on whether or not something is allowed inherently creates difficulty for Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) readers. Encouraging case study presentations in policy discussions may help inform the community and AC.

CW stated that the problem statement focuses more on a financial issue in his opinion. He stated that he would like to consider possible solutions to the issue, whether it’s leasing or something else, that is in the scope of what the AC could evaluate. He further stated that he understands that the AC holds the pen, but rewriting the intent completely is not something with which he was comfortable. He would recommend that if the draft needs to be rewritten, it be abandoned, and the AC start again with the new target problem statement.

RS asked if CW believed the author supported the new problem statement. CW stated he does not believe so. AQ stated that the AC could add to the intent without fully redirecting it. CW stated that action would not reach the level of “redefining,” and believed that it would be less of an issue.

JP stated that looking at this through the lens of current needs basis policy, it points to a misunderstanding of need. The end recipient has the need. They may wish to hold onto some rights, but if ARIN has needs basis policy, this appears to be counter to the normal approach. This should be more accurately formulated as a question surrounding the needs basis. He stated that the AC should acknowledge that financial hardships were expected in the hard landing of the IPv4 exhaustion approach. If the AC is going to say these hardships are too much, no problem, but they cannot say it was a surprise.

CT stated that once the AC has the pen, they are free to tweak language, and the AC understands the issue at hand, but that does not mean the AC needs to go at breakneck speed. At runout, the AC had multiple competing proposals, and out of that emerged something better than the sum of the suggested parts. He stated that the AC should work on what they have and potentially suggest other Proposals dealing with the same problem as ARIN-Prop-308 that take other approaches.

8. Draft Policy ARIN 2021-7: Make Abuse Contact Useful.

AP stated that she received helpful feedback at the microphone, therefore wordsmithing is yet to come to be followed by sending a revision to the PPML. KH stated that some discussions ensued on top of the one surrounding making the abuse URL a machine-readable, required field. The phone number field is a non-optional field as well, but some places do not have a phone number for abuse reporting anymore. Some organizations populate that field with a fake phone number just to complete the Point of Contact record. AP stated that her forthcoming revision would make mention of it. AD asked if Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) would support such fields for the foreseeable future. The Chair mentioned he would ask staff for feedback.

9. Draft Policy ARIN 2021-8: Deprecation of the ‘Autonomous System Originations’ field.

AT mentioned that there were many comments during the ARIN meeting, and the room was split. She also noted that activity on the PPML has risen recently. The scope of the AC and PDP allows removing Section 3.5, but removing the field overall is operational and needs to be handled via the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP). Some are opposed to the removal of the field but in favor of the removal of the NRPM language.

Bram Abramson joined at this time (1:40 p.m. CT).

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2022-1: MDN Clarification for Qualification.

CW stated that there was no in-room feedback, but the draft saw general support on the PPML.

It was moved by CW and seconded by BJ that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2022-1: MDN Clarification for Qualification’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD asked if this was the right time to recommend the draft, as opposed to closer to the next ARIN meeting. CW stated that additional feedback is not foreseen and recommending the policy move forward could spur conversation. AQ stated that it may be more productive to pose specific pointed questions to the PPML first. MW asked if the lack of community feedback was due to a lack of MDN transfers.

The President stated that at a high level, the AC should consider that MDN policy allows transfers, and the easier it is to conduct a transfer under a particular policy, the less of a need there is for that policy to exist. The leasing discussion is similar, and the AC at some point will need to decide how much of Sections 8 and 4 exist to define need.

JS stated that potentially the community is not seeing the problem because staff is helping them through the qualification process under MDN policy, and it may help to clarify the policy so staff may rely on it when vetting requests. CT asked how many requests use Section 4.5 today? JS stated there are not that many requests, but the section does get used. CW stated that the authors are the Policy Experience Report (PER) Working Group, which implies that it was brought to their attention by staff. JS agreed and stated that may be why community input is limited and may continue to be limited.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, one against (AQ).

The Chair reminded CW to draft a conformance statement for staff. CW acknowledged.

11. ARIN-prop-305: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.

AW stated that she met with the NRPM Working Group to discuss this, but further discussion is needed, and there are no changes at this time.

12. ARIN-prop-307: Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy.

KR stated that she and CT met to discuss the text and would like to move it to draft policy status and involve the author in future edits before presenting it in October while keeping an eye on ARIN-2021-3.

It was moved by KR and seconded by AQ that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ARIN-prop-307: ‘Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS noted that the problem statement indicates that it is not intending to interfere with another proposal in progress and asked that the policy shepherds keep that in mind as ARIN-2021-3 progresses.

The Chair called for additional comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor.

13. ARIN-prop-308: Leasing not intended.

AT stated that the policy shepherds have discussed this, but the problem statement is not yet clear as it does not fix what the author is trying to achieve. The policy shepherds will work with the author further. There is no action at this time.

14. ARIN AC Working Groups

• Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. JP stated that the feedback from the WG presentation was well received with no additional direct commentary. He stated that the WG had no additional working items moving forward since what was presented in the session. CT stated that current tasks involve clarifications to ARIN-Prop-305 and splitting up other editorial elements into manageable pieces.

• Policy Development Process Working Group (PDP WG) Update. AP stated that the final draft of the PDP had been circulated for AC review and would be discussed further under Any Other Business.

• Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that the WG was working on Section 6 and other PER items, and they will meet in May.

15. Any Other Business

• PDP Working Group Draft. AP stated that the PDP Working Group worked closely with staff and legal on multiple iterations, circulated progress to the AC along the way, and would like to move the current final draft to the ARIN Board for adoption.

  It was moved by AP and seconded by RS that:

  “The ARIN Advisory Council recommends the updated Policy Development Process for adoption consideration by the ARIN Board of Trustees.”

  CT mentioned that the new draft PDP appears to recommend that the Board can accept or reject PDP revisions but not amend them. If the Board wants to make small changes, they should be able to do so. He further stated that the AC needs one more meeting to have enough time to read and digest before recommending the changes to the Board.

  The President stated that the Board might accept the PDP document as is, but it is more likely they will want to see a community consultation, which is sure to generate feedback. Assuming that feedback does not substantially change the suggested PDP, the Board of Trustees may simply confirm revisions with the AC prior to adoption.

  AP asked if the motion to recommend the PDP changes to the Board could include a request that it go to consultation. The President stated that it may, but the most important thing would be for the AC to be sure they are ready for the suggested PDP to be implemented immediately. The possibility exists that the Board will have no comments, leaving the AC as the final checkpoint prior to adoption.

  AQ stated she would have to abstain from the motion as more time is needed for review. She requested that the PDP Working Group present it to the remainder of the AC and that the motion include a recommendation that it go to a community consultation.

  AD stated that it appears the AC needs more time. The PDP document is a substantial change.

  The President stated that the AC should also keep in mind that ARIN’s new general membership process, and some other documents, exist outside the Board’s control including the Registration Services Agreement (RSA) for instance. The PDP is something that protects member rights, and it is possible that control and say in the future PDP may involve general membership to a greater extent. The President stated that while he does like the process laid out by the PDP WG, future discussion may be involving fiduciary duty and membership empowerment.

  AD believed the PDP is ready to go and he encouraged the AC to look through the circulated materials and prepare questions ahead of a session with the PDP WG, if the WG is to lead one. He further recommended that the AC simply add this to the slot already reserved for the AC meeting. AW thanked the PDP WG for their work and stated that she fully trusted the work they did.

  AP requested withdrawal of the motion on the table, and the motion was withdrawn without objection.

• Discussion and Polling in ARIN Meetings. KH stated that she had discussed polling with in-person and remote attendees. Out of fairness, she wants to write a memo from the AC recommending that in-person and remote attendees register support in the same platform. Some are afraid to raise hands in the room, some individuals tend to sway the room depending on how they register their support, or lack thereof; and there is also the capability to register support in person and remotely. During the pandemic it has been shown that polling online is successful as long as it is fair.

  CW concurred, asking if the manner of polling is up for discussion. KH said it was.

  The President stated that a motion from the AC would be a reasonable option.

  It was moved by KH and seconded by CW that:

  “It is the belief of the ARIN Advisory Council that future show of support methodology at ARIN meetings should take the form of a single, accessible tool with attendee parity and archiving capability.”

  It was stated that polling should be allowed on all devices. The President stated that this would be easy to implement.

  MW asked if Zoom would work for this purpose. RS stated that Zoom would only be acceptable if it has archiving capabilities. CT stated that the new polling solution should not result in attendees using too many platforms at once while at a meeting. It was also stated that it should be kept as simple as possible, and it should not remove the chat archiving currently in place.

  The President stated that remote attendees currently utilize Q&A functionality and chat separately. Chat could be removed entirely, projected on-screen, whatever the AC decides, but the AC should keep in mind the burden placed on in-person attendees. It is important that context be viewable, but not distracting.

  AT suggested an app-based solution could be helpful. KR concurred, stating the app could have bolt-on functionality.

  The President stated that many choices exist for polling, separate from the ARIN meeting app. The solution staff comes up with may blur the distinction between in-person and remote attendees. He further asked if NANOG has an integrated meeting solution that includes polling. Ms. Morris stated that polling could be added but is not currently in place.

• Changes in Employment and Affiliation. JP noted that he has been appointed to serve on a municipal technology council, and the role may involve addressing.

16. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 2:40 p.m. CT. MW moved to adjourn, seconded by KH. The meeting adjourned with no objections.